My taxes go down (But it has nothing to do with the increase in rates, rather it has to do with recognizing prior losses and deductions (Assuming none of those deductions are eliminated))

Most of you probably know I do a bit of stock trading. Normally this time of year I sell off some of the losers (The ones who I think have little to no chance of recovering) in order to off-set gains. This year I'm doing none of that. I'm pushing all of those tax recognizable losses off to next year (2013) when I expect I'll be paying higher rates.

May I ask why the Democrats are so averse to Medicare and Social Security reform? I get that it's generally a black mark at the ballot box, but with Obama leaving and concerned with his legacy, these entitlements seem like things that objectively need fixed? I don't know that much about the proposed plans, but it seems to me like Obama has an inside track at a Clinton-esque Welfare Reform that he spearheaded with the Republican House. These two entitlements simply drain our system. Democrats speak so much about redistributing to the middle class taxing the rich to create overpaid government jobs or government contracts whose benefits flow to the middle class (but, interestingly, so little about the poor). However, all America does is redistribute to the old, who have had successes and no longer need to support anyone. All the while, we charge the young (lower paid) and the middle aged (supporting families) for these services. Likewise, the American poor (who really need the money) are left out because "welfare" is so taboo.

I just don't get this tax the rich, pay the old mentality we seem to have. Why not tax the rich, pay down the debt so our future Americans aren't saddled with our excess? Or better yet, why not stop transferring money to the old that don't need it?

I would never be characterized as left-leaning, but if I'm stuck in the current constraints and inertia of the American system, it seems to me that government redistribution (read: government spending) should flow to the young, working-class, and poor instead of the elderly. Yet, most of our money goes to the old, (plus defense and interest on the debt).

I heard a proposal to raise the SS age to 67, this helps to sustain Social Security, which isn't really the problem, because SS can easily be extended with just some slight adjustemts like raising the age and raising the 100K cut off a little. Medicaire is unsustainable, just like everyting a bout our bloated healthcare system. We just need to switch to a single payer system, remove the employee based healthcare. Get it under the government, the current heathcare platform doesn't work with an aging demographic.

Troy Loney wrote:Once you enact entitlements it's almost impossible to take them away.

I heard a proposal to raise the SS age to 67, this helps to sustain Social Security, which isn't really the problem, because SS can easily be extended with just some slight adjustemts like raising the age and raising the 100K cut off a little. Medicaire is unsustainable, just like everyting a bout our bloated healthcare system. We just need to switch to a single payer system, remove the employee based healthcare. Get it under the government, the current heathcare platform doesn't work with an aging demographic.

The FICA limit for 2012 was $110,100. For 2013 it's $113,700.

I'm all for raising eligibility ages (Our life expectancies after all, are much greater than they were when the program was started)

I'm also for "means testing".

You have to take a hard look at some of these disability cases though. I know a guy who rides a Harley all summer long. (On Sundays he's known to ride about 120 miles out to Montauk and back), yet he's got full disability for a bad back.

I'm sorry, but if you can ride a Harley every day, you can sit at a desk and make telemarketing calls or something.

As far as raising the FICA limits, Let's not kid ourselves, if you're going to raise the limits AND means test, it's A TAX. Pure and simple.

As far as single payer, I've never seen the costs of ANYTHING go down when the government is paying the bill. It just doesn't happen.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down Illinois’ total ban on carrying loaded guns in public on Second Amendment grounds. It stayed the effect of its opinion for 180 days in order to give the Illinois legislature time to come up with an alternate law that “will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.” Illinois is the only state that does not have some form of concealed-carry law.

I'm all for raising eligibility ages (Our life expectancies after all, are much greater than they were when the program was started)

I'm also for "means testing".

You have to take a hard look at some of these disability cases though. I know a guy who rides a Harley all summer long. (On Sundays he's known to ride about 120 miles out to Montauk and back), yet he's got full disability for a bad back.

I'm sorry, but if you can ride a Harley every day, you can sit at a desk and make telemarketing calls or something.

As far as raising the FICA limits, Let's not kid ourselves, if you're going to raise the limits AND means test, it's A TAX. Pure and simple.

As far as single payer, I've never seen the costs of ANYTHING go down when the government is paying the bill. It just doesn't happen.

I'm not sure what issue you're addressing. The point was that the entitlement spending that needs overhauled is medicare in my opinion, social security just needs a couple tweeks. The cost of the government offering only insurance for old people is unsustainable, this private/public mix doesn't work and needs to be addressed. I think one or the other, and because it's not really feasible for old people to get private insurance, the solution is a single payer. The only option I can seem to put my head around is a single payer system that sacrifices some levels of care, but pulls healthcare out of the private for profit which is the reason insurance is so expensive.

Obviously a super subjective article but I'd say the main idea will hold true. The Fed will find a way to overturn the state laws. I don't really care about pot one way or another but like alcohol I have no problem if it is used responsibly.

Obviously a super subjective article but I'd say the main idea will hold true. The Fed will find a way to overturn the state laws. I don't really care about pot one way or another but like alcohol I have no problem if it is used responsibly.

If the pot in question is grown, sold and used within the States borders then the federal government should have absolutely no say in the matter unless the place it is grown, sold or used is on Federal property like a National Park or US courthouse, etc.

Troy Loney wrote:Once you enact entitlements it's almost impossible to take them away.

I heard a proposal to raise the SS age to 67, this helps to sustain Social Security, which isn't really the problem, because SS can easily be extended with just some slight adjustemts like raising the age and raising the 100K cut off a little. Medicaire is unsustainable, just like everyting a bout our bloated healthcare system. We just need to switch to a single payer system, remove the employee based healthcare. Get it under the government, the current heathcare platform doesn't work with an aging demographic.

When Social Security was enacted, the actuarial calculations plotted a certain amount of growth over time that was to be expected (in terms of the number of beneficiaries actually being paid). What they did not - and really could not - calculate was the massive increase in life expectancy since the program's passage. When first enacted, the age to collect a SocSec benefit was actually about two years older than the average life expectancy in the U.S., which meant there was a tiny population of people who would actually collect. But now, life expectancy is well into the eighth decade..... which means people are eligible to collect - on average - for about 14 or 15 years now.

That's simply not a sustainable structure.

The problems with Medicare are more closely tied to the costs of healthcare, not any structural deficiencies inherent to the program.

ExPatriatePen wrote:As far as single payer, I've never seen the costs of ANYTHING go down when the government is paying the bill. It just doesn't happen.

And yet the U.S. - almost alone in the developed world with a non-public healthcare system - spends more money (by a significant factor) than nations with proper government-run healthcare systems, and achieves nowhere near the level of outcomes.

Something like 5% of the population accounts for roughly half the total healthcare expenditures in this country, while half the population accounts for something like 4% of healthcare spending. And by having healthcare linked to your job, you open up coverage gaps for people in transitional phases of their careers (or jobless) and you put American companies at sometimes crippling competitive disadvantages.

Your argument is putting philosophy ('government bad!') in front of observable facts (single payer systems the world over do a better job of controlling costs). The administrative overhead of the roughly 100 or so private insurance companies in this country runs at around 30% - a little more than $300 billion annually - and much of that (if not most) comes from the way claims are reviewed and, preferably, denied. That same cost for Medicare? Under 3%.

Based on fact and not philosophy, the objective arguments against a single-payer system are not all that strong. And that's before you even get into the morality questions raised by profiteering off the sick and infirm (or, more accurately, not paying for sick people's healthcare after years of paying into the pool).

ExPatriatePen wrote:As far as single payer, I've never seen the costs of ANYTHING go down when the government is paying the bill. It just doesn't happen.

And yet the U.S. - almost alone in the developed world with a non-public healthcare system - spends more money (by a significant factor) than nations with proper government-run healthcare systems, and achieves nowhere near the level of outcomes.

Something like 5% of the population accounts for roughly half the total healthcare expenditures in this country, while half the population accounts for something like 4% of healthcare spending. And by having healthcare linked to your job, you open up coverage gaps for people in transitional phases of their careers (or jobless) and you put American companies at sometimes crippling competitive disadvantages.

Your argument is putting philosophy ('government bad!') in front of observable facts (single payer systems the world over do a better job of controlling costs). The administrative overhead of the roughly 100 or so private insurance companies in this country runs at around 30% - a little more than $300 billion annually - and much of that (if not most) comes from the way claims are reviewed and, preferably, denied. That same cost for Medicare? Under 3%.

Based on fact and not philosophy, the objective arguments against a single-payer system are not all that strong. And that's before you even get into the morality questions raised by profiteering off the sick and infirm (or, more accurately, not paying for sick people's healthcare after years of paying into the pool).

The current system isn't free market. It's government backed.We had another quasi-governmental program blow up on us recently, housing.There's definitely an issue with what to do about the 'chronically in need' who can't get insurance, but the answer isn't to create Freddie-Med.

This is far from the first instance of union mob violence/threats, and I doubt it will be the last. Remember when we were told how radical and dangerous the Tea Party was, and how they were going to incite violence at some point? Funny, I am still waiting for that dire prediction to come true.

The stuff in this video is the definition of rabid radicalism. Of course, it doesn't fit the typical narrative that they are simply hard-working wage fighters rallying to save their livelihoods and their families. This stuff happens.... ALL. THE. TIME.

I especially loved when the one guy, when asked why he opposes right-to-work laws, started screaming about "parasitic people taking his benefits".

have you ever worked in healthcare? Do you know how much malpractice insurance costs doctors? Do you know how much that cost is built into tests and checkups? I could keep going but it looks like you wouldn't understand.

have you ever worked in healthcare? Do you know how much malpractice insurance costs doctors? Do you know how much that cost is built into tests and checkups? I could keep going but it looks like you wouldn't understand.

Actually, LITT is one of the few people ITT that fully understands the impact of the health bill. To me, it looks like he's definitely in the healthcare biz, so yeah, he definitely knows what he's talking about.

The national average for ob-gyns' annual premiums, according to Strunk, is $30,000, although in some areas it can reach a staggering $140,000. In comparison, premiums for internal medicine physicians can range from $3,782 in Arkansas to $28,548 in New York's Nassau and Suffolk counties, according to the monthly newsletter Medical Liability Monitor.